FDA Safety Notice

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) In 2017 and continuing into 2018, Big Pharma has been fighting major legal battles related to off-label marketing of drugs for unintended uses. They also engaged in a parallel strategy, where they were influencing the FDA and other policy making agencies behind the scenes in Washington DC. Big Pharma was paying millions to lobbyists, making campaign donations and generally buying influence as they always have. It was a foregone conclusion that with the Trump administration view of , “no regulatory oversight required” that there would be some loosening of the FDA regulatory shackles.

Big Pharma was getting ready for freedom to sell, sell, sell their drugs in any way they could, including off-label marketing of the drugs for unintended use purposes. A corporate policy, that’s technically illegal, yet results in billions of dollars in profits every years for Big Pharma. Then the FDA rolled out an unexpected new proposed rule, in March 2017 cracking down on “off-label’ marketing of drugs. This new rule change wasn’t in Big Pharma’s bests interests, sending the drug industry into a furious lobbying scramble. Bring in the Trump camp and on January 12, 2018 Big Pharma and the army of lobbyists and elected officials that were recruited, seem to have succeeded in stopping the FDA rules change that would have tightened up “off label” marketing of drugs.

This seems to be further evidence of the Trump administration permitting private corporations to control what goes on behind the scenes in federal regulatory agencies these days. The same loosening of enforcement rules has been seen in the EPA as well as in Dept. of Energy oversight enforcement authority. Whatever else you might think about the ramped up Trump vs. Obama administration mindset, this rule delay is an example of the new FDA leadership doing what is in the best interests of those they are supposed to be regulating, the drug makers, and not in the interests of the US consumers.

To put this into perspective, consider the current “Opioid Crisis” gripping the entire country, where “off-label” marketing of opiates for the last 20 years by drug makers, has resulted in thousands of deaths each year, unknown financial losses and the related social impact felt in every state across the country. Another result is the Opiate Prescription Litigation MDL 2804, (see OPIOID CRISIS BRIEFCASE: MDL 2804 OPIATE PRESCRIPTION LITIGATION) where litigation started when hundreds of counties, states and cities and other entities impacted by the catastrophic expense related to combatting the opiate healthcare crisis fought back. The various parties have filed lawsuits against opioid drug makers and distributors, demanding repayment of the billions of dollars spent on addressing the massive costs related to opioid abuse, primarily due to opioid based prescription drugs flooding the country.

When the Obama administration ended on January 9, 2017, the FDA issued a Final Rule on “Clarification of When Products Made or Derived from Tobacco are Regulated as Drugs, Devices, or Combination Products; Amendments to Regulations Regarding ‘Intended Uses.’” That “clarification” was meant to enable additional enforcement and control over drug makers rampant “off -label” marketing of drugs for purposes that were never FDA approved. This was an attempt by the FDA to have the ability to punish off-label promotions, where previously the process was a two-step regulatory review, whereby off-label promotions are said to prove an indicated use not included in the label and, thus, not accompanied by adequate directions for use – making the product misbranded. These regulations have been around since the 1950s, but a recent series of court decisions invoking the First Amendment called into question the FDA’s interpretation of “intended use” and its efforts to shut down truthful medical-science communications about potential benefits from off-label use.

In a 2015 proposed rule, the FDA referred to striking the language from regulations permitting the FDA to consider a manufacturer’s mere knowledge of actual use as evidence of intended use, which would have further enabled Big Pharma drug marketing abuses to go unchecked. But then, the FDA’s January 9, 2017 proposal reversed course, stating that retained knowledge of off-label use as evidence of intended use, clarified that any relevant source of evidence, whether circumstantial or direct could demonstrate intended use, and ultimately invoked the dreaded “totality of the evidence” standard. This would have enable the FDA to begin oversight and enforcement of practices such as the blatant and wide open “off-label” marketing of opioid prescription drugs that started in the mid-1990’s and never stopped.

Instead of putting a check on Big Pharma abuses, we have the Trump administration placing a hold on new regulations, and delaying the “intended use” regulation change to March 19, 2018, so that comments could be received and considered, and thereby enabling the Big Pharma “lobby machine” to become fully engaged across all DC circles, ensuring that the FDA changes are effectively put to rest.

The bottom line is that the FDA is now proposing to “delay until further notice” the portions of the final rule amending the FDA’s existing regulations on “off-label” drug use, when describing the types of evidence that may be considered in determining a medical product’s intended uses. The FDA will receive comments on this proposal through February 5, 2018.

Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider. The global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion.

“The conduct at issue in this case jeopardized the health and safety of patients and damaged the public trust,” stated Eric Holder, then US Attorney General, “This multibillion-dollar resolution demonstrates the Justice Department’s firm commitment to preventing and combating all forms of health care fraud. And it proves our determination to hold accountable any corporation that breaks the law and enriches its bottom line at the expense of the American people” he added.

The resolution includes criminal fines and forfeiture for violations of the law and civil settlements based on the False Claims Act arising out of multiple investigations of the company and its subsidiaries.

“When companies put profit over patients’ health and misuse taxpayer dollars, we demand accountability,” said Associate Attorney General Tony West. “In addition to significant monetary sanctions, we will ensure that non-monetary measures are in place to facilitate change in corporate behavior and help ensure the playing field is level for all market participants.”

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) protects the health and safety of the public by ensuring, among other things, that drugs intended for use in humans are safe and effective for their intended uses and that the labeling of such drugs bear true, complete and accurate information. Under the FDCA, a pharmaceutical company must specify the intended uses of a drug in its new drug application to the FDA. Before approval, the FDA must determine that the drug is safe and effective for those specified uses. Once the drug is approved, if the company intends a different use and then introduces the drug into interstate commerce for that new, unapproved use, the drug becomes misbranded. The unapproved use is also known as an “off-label” use because it is not included in the drug’s FDA-approved labeling.

“When pharmaceutical companies interfere with the FDA’s mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective for the American public, they undermine the doctor-patient relationship and put the health and safety of patients at risk,” said Director of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations John Roth. “Today’s settlement demonstrates the government’s continued focus on pharmaceutical companies that put profits ahead of the public’s health. The FDA will continue to devote resources to criminal investigations targeting pharmaceutical companies that disregard the drug approval process and recklessly promote drugs for uses that have not been proven to be safe and effective.”

J&J RISPERDAL MARKETING ABUSE

In a related civil complaint filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States alleges that Janssen marketed Risperdal to control the behaviors and conduct of the nation’s most vulnerable patients: elderly nursing home residents, children and individuals with mental disabilities. The government alleges that J&J and Janssen caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs by promoting Risperdal for off-label uses that federal health care programs did not cover, making false and misleading statements about the safety and efficacy of Risperdal and paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe Risperdal.

“J&J’s promotion of Risperdal for unapproved uses threatened the most vulnerable populations of our society – children, the elderly and those with developmental disabilities,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Zane Memeger. “This historic settlement sends the message that drug manufacturers who place profits over patient care will face severe criminal and civil penalties.”

In its complaint, the government alleges that the FDA repeatedly advised Janssen that marketing Risperdal as safe and effective for the elderly would be “misleading.” The FDA cautioned Janssen that behavioral disturbances in elderly dementia patients were not necessarily manifestations of psychotic disorders and might even be “appropriate responses to the deplorable conditions under which some demented patients are housed, thus raising an ethical question regarding the use of an antipsychotic medication for inappropriate behavioral control.”

The complaint further alleges that J&J and Janssen were aware that Risperdal posed serious health risks for the elderly, including an increased risk of strokes, but that the companies downplayed these risks. For example, when a J&J study of Risperdal showed a significant risk of strokes and other adverse events in elderly dementia patients, the complaint alleges that Janssen combined the study data with other studies to make it appear that there was a lower overall risk of adverse events. A year after J&J had received the results of a second study confirming the increased safety risk for elderly patients taking Risperdal, but had not published the data, one physician who worked on the study cautioned Janssen that “[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completed … we must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings.”

The complaint also alleges that Janssen knew that patients taking Risperdal had an increased risk of developing diabetes, but nonetheless promoted Risperdal as “uncompromised by safety concerns (does not cause diabetes).” When Janssen received the initial results of studies indicating that Risperdal posed the same diabetes risk as other antipsychotics, the complaint alleges that the company retained outside consultants to re-analyze the study results and ultimately published articles stating that Risperdal was actually associated with a lower risk of developing diabetes.

The complaint alleges that, despite the FDA warnings and increased health risks, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen aggressively marketed Risperdal to control behavioral disturbances in dementia patients through an “ElderCare sales force” designed to target nursing homes and doctors who treated the elderly. In business plans, Janssen’s goal was to “[m]aximize and grow RISPERDAL’s market leadership in geriatrics and long term care.” The company touted Risperdal as having “proven efficacy” and “an excellent safety and tolerability profile” in geriatric patients.

In addition to promoting Risperdal for elderly dementia patients, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen allegedly promoted the antipsychotic drug for use in children and individuals with mental disabilities. The complaint alleges that J&J and Janssen knew that Risperdal posed certain health risks to children, including the risk of elevated levels of prolactin, a hormone that can stimulate breast development and milk production. Nonetheless, one of Janssen’s Key Base Business Goals was to grow and protect the drug’s market share with child/adolescent patients. Janssen instructed its sales representatives to call on child psychiatrists, as well as mental health facilities that primarily treated children, and to market Risperdal as safe and effective for symptoms of various childhood disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and autism. Until late 2006, Risperdal was not approved for use in children for any purpose, and the FDA repeatedly warned the company against promoting it for use in children.

The government’s complaint also contains allegations that Janssen paid speaker fees to doctors to influence them to write prescriptions for Risperdal. Sales representatives allegedly told these doctors that if they wanted to receive payments for speaking, they needed to increase their Risperdal prescriptions.

In addition to allegations relating to Risperdal, today’s settlement also resolves allegations relating to Invega, a newer antipsychotic drug also sold by Janssen. Although Invega was approved only for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, the government alleges that, from 2006 through 2009, J&J and Janssen marketed the drug for off-label indications and made false and misleading statements about its safety and efficacy.

As part of the global resolution, J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay a total of $1.391 billion to resolve the false claims allegedly resulting from their off-label marketing and kickbacks for Risperdal and Invega. This total includes $1.273 billion to be paid as part of the resolution announced today, as well as $118 million that J&J and Janssen paid to the state of Texas in March 2012 to resolve similar allegations relating to Risperdal. Because Medicaid is a joint federal-state program, J&J’s conduct caused losses to both the federal and state governments. The additional payment made by J&J as part of today’s settlement will be shared between the federal and state governments, with the federal government recovering $749 million, and the states recovering $524 million. The federal government and Texas each received $59 million from the Texas settlement.

NURSING HOME PATIENT ABUSES BY J&J

The civil settlement also resolves allegations that, in furtherance of their efforts to target elderly dementia patients in nursing homes, J&J and Janssen paid kickbacks to Omnicare Inc., the nation’s largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients. In a complaint filed in the District of Massachusetts in January 2010, the United States alleged that J&J paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to Omnicare under the guise of market share rebate payments, data-purchase agreements, “grants” and “educational funding.” These kickbacks were intended to induce Omnicare and its hundreds of consultant pharmacists to engage in “active intervention programs” to promote the use of Risperdal and other J&J drugs in nursing homes. Omnicare’s consultant pharmacists regularly reviewed nursing home patients’ medical charts and made recommendations to physicians on what drugs should be prescribed for those patients. Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent” recommendations based on their clinical judgment, J&J viewed the pharmacists as an “extension of [J&J’s] sales force.”

J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay $149 million to resolve the government’s contention that these kickbacks caused Omnicare to submit false claims to federal health care programs. The federal share of this settlement is $132 million, and the five participating states’ total share is $17 million. In 2009, Omnicare paid $98 million to resolve its civil liability for claims that it accepted kickbacks from J&J and Janssen, along with certain other conduct.

“Consultant pharmacists can play an important role in protecting nursing home residents from the use of antipsychotic drugs as chemical restraints,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz. “This settlement is a reminder that the recommendations of consultant pharmacists should be based on their independent clinical judgment and should not be the product of money paid by drug companies.”

OFF-LABEL USE OF HEART DRUG NATRECOR

The civil settlement announced today also resolves allegations that J&J and another of its subsidiaries, Scios Inc., caused false and fraudulent claims to be submitted to federal health care programs for the heart failure drug Natrecor. In August 2001, the FDA approved Natrecor to treat patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure who have shortness of breath at rest or with minimal activity. This approval was based on a study involving hospitalized patients experiencing severe heart failure who received infusions of Natrecor over an average 36-hour period.

In a civil complaint filed in 2009 in the Northern District of California, the government alleged that, shortly after Natrecor was approved, Scios launched an aggressive campaign to market the drug for scheduled, serial outpatient infusions for patients with less severe heart failure – a use not included in the FDA-approved label and not covered by federal health care programs. These infusions generally involved visits to an outpatient clinic or doctor’s office for four- to six-hour infusions one or two times per week for several weeks or months.

The government’s complaint alleged that Scios had no sound scientific evidence supporting the medical necessity of these outpatient infusions and misleadingly used a small pilot study to encourage the serial outpatient use of the drug. Among other things, Scios sponsored an extensive speaker program through which doctors were paid to tout the purported benefits of serial outpatient use of Natrecor. Scios also urged doctors and hospitals to set up outpatient clinics specifically to administer the serial outpatient infusions, in some cases providing funds to defray the costs of setting up the clinics, and supplied providers with extensive resources and support for billing Medicare for the outpatient infusions.

As part of today’s resolution, J&J and Scios have agreed to pay the federal government $184 million to resolve their civil liability for the alleged false claims to federal health care programs resulting from their off-label marketing of Natrecor. In October 2011, Scios pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor FDCA violation and paid a criminal fine of $85 million for introducing Natrecor into interstate commerce for an off-label use.

“This case is an example of a drug company encouraging doctors to use a drug in a way that was unsupported by valid scientific evidence,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Brian Stretch. “We are committed to ensuring that federal health care programs do not pay for such inappropriate uses, and that pharmaceutical companies market their drugs only for uses that have been proven safe and effective.”

Non-Monetary Provisions of the Global Resolution and Corporate Integrity Agreement

In addition to the criminal and civil resolutions, J&J executed a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). The CIA includes provisions requiring J&J to implement major changes to the way its pharmaceutical affiliates do business. Among other things, the CIA requires J&J to change its executive compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual bonuses and other long-term incentives from covered executives if they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct. J&J may recoup monies from executives who are current employees and from those who have left the company. The CIA also requires J&J’s pharmaceutical businesses to implement and maintain transparency regarding their research practices, publication policies and payments to physicians. On an annual basis, management employees, including senior executives and certain members of J&J’s independent board of directors, must certify compliance with provisions of the CIA. J&J must submit detailed annual reports to HHS-OIG about its compliance program and its business operations.

“OIG will work aggressively with our law enforcement partners to hold companies accountable for marketing and promotion that violate laws intended to protect the public,” said Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Daniel R. Levinson. “Our compliance agreement with Johnson & Johnson increases individual accountability for board members, sales representatives, company executives and management. The agreement also contains strong monitoring and reporting provisions to help ensure that the public is protected from future unlawful and potentially harmful off-label marketing.”

FEDERAL AND STATE JOINT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

This resolution marks the culmination of an extensive, coordinated investigation by federal and state law enforcement partners that is the hallmark of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which fosters government collaborations to fight fraud. Announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the HEAT initiative has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.

The criminal cases against Janssen and Scios were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California and the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch. The civil settlements were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of California and the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch. Assistance was provided by the HHS Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of the General Counsel-CMS Division, the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

This matter was investigated by HHS-OIG, the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Inspector General, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labor, TRICARE Program Integrity, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Office of the Inspector General and the FBI.

One of the most powerful tools in the fight against Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

The department enforces the FDCA by prosecuting those who illegally distribute unapproved, misbranded and adulterated drugs and medical devices in violation of the Act. Since 2009, fines, penalties and forfeitures that have been imposed in connection with such FDCA violations have totaled more than $6 billion.

The civil settlements described above resolve multiple lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. From the federal government’s share of the civil settlements announced today, the whistleblowers in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will receive $112 million, the whistleblowers in the District of Massachusetts will receive $27.7 million and the whistleblower in the Northern District of California will receive $28 million. Except to the extent that J&J subsidiaries have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty to the criminal charges discussed above, the claims settled by the civil settlements are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability

With the Trump Administration still claiming that no regulatory oversight is needed to monitor the US drug industry, that they can self-regulate, it appears that there will be no letup in the rampant “off-label: and unintended use marketing of pharmaceutical drugs in the United States. The one way that Big Pharma is held accountable is in the courtroom, although financial damages and penalties against the drug companies amounting to billions of dollars each year being awarded by juries, wont change FDA policy, it does provide a small amount of official recognition that there are ongoing abuses by the pharmaceutical industry in the USA.

Oxycontin Founding Family Are Now Forced to Defend Profits In Court

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) As more states and federal agencies continue to scrutinize the opioid drug manufacturers across the country, a clear high value target is emerging in Purdue Pharma, L.P. and the Sackler family that founded the company. The family has profited to the tune of about $13 billion to date, and have somehow avoided the legal spotlight for the last 10 years. The Sackler family have always been protected by the company shield, even though their most profitable selling opioid drug Oxycontin and its boardroom coordinated marketing campaign was the brainchild and a direct result of the Purdue Pharma company founders, the Sackler brothers and their tried and true business model.

That is now changing, as the State of Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family as well as various Purdue executives over the prescription painkiller OxyContin. Oxycontin is now recognized as the opioid fuse that ignited America’s opioid crisis. This is the first time where Purdue’s leading executives and members of the multibillionaire Sackler family, now known to be feuding over the opioid crisis have been named in civil litigation.

The Sacklers named in the lawsuits include Theresa and Beverly, widows of Purdue founders, brothers Mortimer and Raymond Sackler and Ilene, Kathe and Mortimer David Alfons Sackler, three of Mortimer’s children; Jonathan and Richard Sackler, Raymond’s two sons; and David Sackler, Raymond’s grandson. The Sackler family is worth conservatively, an estimated$13 billion, according to Forbes, which has been generated from sales of OxyContin. As is normal procedure by the Sackler family and the company itself, the Sackler family feuding members always decline requests for comment on the catastrophic opioid crisis and avoid discussing any Purdue Pharma links to how the crisis came about.

PURDUE PHARMA NAMED IN 600 OPIOID LAWSUITS

Dozens of states, counties and local governments have independently sued opioid drugmakers in both state and federal courts across the country, (see OPIOID-CRISIS-BRIEFCASE-MDL-2804-OPIATE-PRESCRIPTION-LITIGATION by Mass Tort Nexus) with claims alleging all opiate drug makers, distributors and now the pharmacies engaged in fraudulent marketing to sell the powerful painkillers. They also failed to monitor and report the massive increases in opioid prescriptions flooding the US marketplace. Which has now resulted in fueling the nationwide epidemic, that’s reported to have killed over a quarter million people. The now organized approach steps up those efforts as officials sift evidence and are now holding not only the companies, but the executives and owners culpable in the designing the opioid crisis.

Purdue Pharma is facing a legal assault on many fronts, as cities, counties and states have either filed suit or are probing the company for an alleged role in the United States’ opioid and addiction epidemic. Now, a lawsuit from Massachusetts’ attorney general Maura Healey is the first to bring the company’s current and former execs into the mix, including the billionaire family with sole ownership of Purdue.

At a news conference this week, Healey said she’s filing suit against the drugmaker, plus current and former executives and board members, “for their role in creating and profiting from this epidemic that has killed so many.” The suit alleges Purdue downplayed risks and overstated benefits of opioid painkillers, including OxyContin. It seeks to link the deaths of 670 Massachusetts residents to actions at the company.

A Purdue spokesman said the company shares concern about the opioid crisis. Purdue is “disappointed, however, that in the midst of good faith negotiations with many states, the Commonwealth has decided to pursue a costly and protracted litigation process,” he said.

Purdue is no stranger to litigation, in 2007 Purdue agreed to pay $19.5million in civil penalties, but did not admit wrongdoing, to settle lawsuits with 26 states – including Massachusetts – and the District of Columbia after being accused of aggressively marketing OxyContin to doctors while downplaying the risk of addiction. This is a consistent pattern, including the 2007 criminal indictment and plea of senior Purdue Pharma executives, where they agreed to pay over $600 million and plead guilty to a greatly reduced charge of “mislabeling drugs” which seems to have set the stage for the Purdue legal strategy of throwing money at all claim of abuse, thereby setting the Purdue Pharma marketing model loose on the US consumers and the healthcare industry, see USA vs. Purdue Criminal Plea “Oxycontin” usdc.virginia.gov/OPINIONS July 2007

PURDUE PHARMA FIRES ENTIRE SALES FORCE

In what is either an amazing coincidence or a look at corporate political maneuvering, just a week after the Sacklers and company executives were named individually in the latest Purdue Pharma opiate lawsuit, the OxyContin maker laid off its entire sales force. This puts an end to an era for Purdue that at one point, was the top-selling opioid drug in the country, and became synonymous with the nation’s opioid crisis, while the Sacklers collected billions in profits from Oxycontin sales.

Purdue, had already laid off half of its 600 sales reps in February 2018, as part of the corporate political maneuvering to curry favor with the numerous state and federal investigation that were taking place, when it announced that it would no longer be promoting OxyContin to doctors. On July 19, 2018 six days after the State of Massachusetts filed a complaint naming the company, the founding Sackler family and the executive suite as defendants in a an opioid litigation complaint, Purdue Pharma confirmed that they had terminated the the remaining 220 employees in its sales force.

While Purdue still manufactures Oxycontin, which accounts for more than 80 percent of the company’s, they will be shifting its focus away from the highly lucrative opiate painkiller market, according to company sources.

PURDUE PHARMA DENIES ALL CLAIMS

We vigorously deny the Commonwealth’s allegations and look forward to presenting our substantial defenses to these claims,” Purdue’s spokesman said in a statement.

Executives named in the suit are current and former Purdue CEOs Craig Landau, John Stewart and Mark Timney, as well as current and former members of the Purdue board of directors, including members of the Sackler family. Dr. John Purdue Gray and George Frederick Bingham founded the company in 1892, and Mortimer and Raymond Sackler purchased Purdue in 1952, which is now owned solely by the Sackler family,.

The lawsuit alleges the company violated Massachusetts’ consumer protection statute, created a public nuisance, and that it was negligent. It seeks restitution, damages and penalties related to the alleged actions, plus injunctive relief. The company has generated more than $500 million in revenue in Massachusetts since 2008, the AG says.

“Time after time, in doctor visit after doctor visit—and there were thousands of doctor visits made to hundreds of doctors around this state—there were misrepresentations,” Healey said at a news conference. “There were lies about the efficacy, about the safety, about the supposed nonaddictive nature of their product.”

The State of Massachusetts lawsuit is the latest in a wave of complaints against the company and Big Pharma opiate drug makers involved in making and distributing opioids. Hundreds of cities and counties have filed lawsuits, and the cases are now grouped in federal court in Cleveland in MDL 2804, Opiate Prescription Litigation in front of Judge Daniel Polster. Early this year, the judge in the multidistrict litigation indicated that the sides might be able to reach a settlement, but the negotiations later hit “barriers.” The judge charted a course for a few cases to go to bellwether trials.

Aside from cities and counties, dozens of state officials and the feds have gotten involved. Attorneys general from 41 states are investigating and discussing a possible settlement with the company. Last month, six states sued Purdue over its role in the epidemic, according to USA Today. The U.S. Department of Justice is also backing cities and counties in their legal efforts.

The Sackler family name graces some of the nation’s most prestigious bastions of culture and learning — the Sackler Center for Arts Education at the Guggenheim Museum, the Sackler Lefcourt Center for Child Development in Manhattan and the Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology at Columbia University, to name a few.

Now for the first time since the opioid crisis came to the attention of America, the Sackler name is front and center in a lawsuit accusing the family and the company they own and run, Purdue Pharma, of helping to fuel the deadly opioid crisis that has killed thousands of Americans.

Congratulations to the Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey took the unusual step of naming the eight members of the Sackler family listed above as part of the conspiracy that profited from and cause the catastrophic opioid crisis that’s gripping the USA to this day.

While prosecutors in more than a dozen other states hit hard by the opioid epidemic have sued Purdue Pharma, Healey is the first to name individual Sackler family members, along with eight company executives.

(The Sackler family regularly notes that Arthur Sackler, whose philanthropy got his name on the Smithsonian’s Sackler Gallery in Washington and other cultural institutions, died before Purdue began selling OxyContin. Several of his nieces and nephews help run the company.)

Filed on behalf of 670 Massachusetts residents who were prescribed OxyContin, became addicted to opioids and later died, the suit alleges that Purdue deceived doctors and patients about the risks, pushed prescribers to keep patients on the drugs and aggressively targeted veterans and the elderly.

The civil suit doesn’t name a dollar figure, but Healey asked a judge to order the Sacklers and Purdue to “pay full and complete restitution to every person who has suffered any ascertainable loss by reason of their unlawful conduct.”

Mike Moore, the former Mississippi attorney general who took down Big Tobaccotwo decades ago and is now going after Big Pharma, called Healey’s move “a brilliant legal strategy.”

“It pulls up the corporate curtain of protection that these people hide behind,” Moore said in an email to NBC News. “The Sacklers personally made billions of dollars while tens of thousands of overdose deaths were occurring as a direct result of their lies about the addictiveness and effectiveness of OxyContin, the drug they created and marketed. Just as these folks like to be honored when they write big checks to museums and have their names inscribed on plaques for their contributions to so many causes, they should be held accountable for how they made that money in the first place.”

SACKLER FAMILY KNOWN FOR PHILANTHROPY

Juliet Sorensen, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago who is now a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, said that the Sacklers are known for their philanthropy — “not for being the driving force behind the opioid epidemic through which they gained their billions.”

“The Sacklers’ collective silence signals a lack of remorse for their role in the opioid epidemic,” she said in an email. “The complaint is a form of exposure.”

“If the Sacklers were not actually defendants that were sued, but rather named and discussed in the body of the complaint, that would be naming and shaming but without legal consequences,” she said. “In this case, however, they are named as defendants, so the naming and shaming ‘pitiless publicity’ effect comes along with potential legal liability.”

The Sacklers named in the complaint are now used to defending thensleves individually and when asked to cooment, the standard Purdue reply was offered by Purdue Pharma spokesman Bob Josephson in an email not a personal quote, “Not at this time.”

Purdue Pharma denied the allegations in the lawsuit, saying it was “disappointed” that, amid negotiations with other states that have sued, Massachusetts “decided to pursue a costly and protracted litigation process.”

“We will continue to work collaboratively with the states towards bringing meaningful solutions,” the company said.

MASSACHUSETTS HOLDS SACKLERS LIABLE

Emalie Gainey, a spokeswoman for Healey, said the attorney general’s intent in naming the Sacklers was “to hold them individually liable for the role we allege they played.”

“Not only did we name the company today, but we’ve also chose to name executives and directors,” Healey said when the lawsuit was announced. “Ours is the first lawsuit in the country to name those executives personally and tell the story of how they contributed to this deadly crisis.”

Mississippi was the first state to sue Purdue Pharma and the other big pharmaceutical companies, and the state’s attorney general, Jim Hood, said he approved of the message Massachusetts is sending.

“No individual should be above the law and allowed to hide behind corporate protections to shield them from personal responsibility,” Hood said via a spokeswoman. “That includes the Sackler family. Mississippi applauds the efforts of Massachusetts in joining our efforts and seeking accountability wherever it lies.”

In Ohio, the second state to go after the drug companies, including Purdue Pharma, Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Attorney General Mike DeWine, said individual Sackler family members “would certainly be covered” by the state’s action.

The Sackler family is the 19th richest in the nation, with an estimated fortune of $13 billion, according to Forbes.

The Sacklers involved with Purdue Pharma are the descendants of brothers Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. Their eldest brother, Arthur, died in 1987, well before Purdue began making and selling OxyContin. Arthur also worked in pharmaceuticals and developed a reputation for cleverly marketing new drugs directly to doctors, convincing them to prescribe medications including tranquilizers to their patients.

Arthur was inducted into the Medical Advertising Hall of Fame after his death, but he has also been criticized for originating “most of the questionable practices that propelled the pharmaceutical industry into the scourge it is today,” as Allen Frances, the former chair of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, told the New Yorker last year.

Arthur’s family has made a point of noting that he was not involved in the sale of OxyContin and would prefer him to be remembered for his philanthropy, including funding the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery of Chinese Stone Sculpture at The Metropolitan Museum in Manhattan and the Arthur M. Sackler Museum at Harvard University.

“None of the charitable donations made by Arthur prior to his death, nor that I made on his behalf after his death, were funded by the production, distribution or sale of OxyContin or other revenue from Purdue Pharma,” his widow, Jillian Sackler, said in a February statement. “Period.”

Seven of the Sacklers named in the suit have been on the Purdue board since the 1990s, according to the suit, while David Sackler, the grandson, has served since 2012.

The board met on a weekly — sometimes daily — basis while the company was being investigated by 26 states and the Justice Department from 2001 to 2007, according to the lawsuit. In 2007, the board settled and agreed to pay a $700 million fine after the company’s CEO at the time, Michael Friedman, and two other high-ranking company officials pleaded guilty to misleading doctors and patients about opioids.

That state court litigation is now subject to an ongoing legal battle in the Kentucky courts where Purdue is fighting to keep the original court records from that settlement sealed, due to the only deposition testimony of one of the Sackler brothers is known to be located. The Purdue court records were unsealed by Pike County Judge, Stephen Combs in May 2016 and Purdue immediately appealed with oral arguments taking place June 26, 2017 in front of a three judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which as of June 20, 2018 has not issued a ruling on releasing the records. The original Kentucky vs. Purdue docket information is case no. 07-CI-01303, Judge Stephen Combs, Pike County Circuit Court of Kentucky.

OxyContin was hailed as a medical marvel when it debuted in 1995. Pitched as balm for people suffering from moderate to severe pain, it reportedly generated more than $35 billion in revenue for Purdue Pharma.

But its chief ingredient is oxycodone, a cousin of heroin. And prosecutors say Purdue played down the dangers of addiction while getting hundreds of thousands of Americans hooked on opioids.

Purdue has argued that OxyContin is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and accounts for just 2 percent of the opioid prescriptions nationwide.

There are now more than 600 lawsuits naming Purdue Pharma, LP as a defendant in both federal and state court actions, this does not include the potential criminal indictments of not only the company but the Purdue family members that may be emerging. Damages are expected to easily exceed $100 billion versus the company and now that the Sacklers and company executives have been named individually the whole scope of litigation may be changing for the better, as those who profited most from the opioid crisis are now being held accountable.

Opioid litigation in New York and other state courts, where hundreds of counties and cities have filed lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors, are now moving forward even with the explosion in the Federal Opiate Litigation MDL 2804 OPIOID-CRISIS-BRIEFCASE -MDL-2804-OPIATE-PRESCRIPTION-LITIGATION, where more than 500 states, counties, cities as well as unions, hospitals and individuals have filed lawsuits against the opioid industry as a whole.

At one point, the opiate industry attempted to raise arguments stating that the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t yet determined whether narcotic painkillers are unnecessarily dangerous – a central question in any litigation, which was quickly denied and seems to show that Opiate Big Pharma is once again attempting to hide behind the FDA shield.

In a two-page order issued in March by Judge Jerry Garguilo of the Suffolk County Supreme Court, New York where he ruled that there is “no compelling reason to impose a stay of proceedings” until the FDA completes its own review of the benefits and risks of opioids. The lawsuits by most of the counties in New York, which have been consolidated in Garguilo’s court, are “backward-looking” toward allegedly fraudulent marketing materials and tactics the drug companies used to convince doctors and patients their products had low risk of addiction.

Oklahoma, one of at least 20 states besides New York that have opioid lawsuit dockets against drugmakers, alleges fraudulent marketing of drugs that fueled the opioid epidemic in the lawsuit filed in June 2017, and seeks unspecified damages from Purdue Pharma, Allergan, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals and several of their subsidiaries.

The New York state court lawsuits are joined by another somewhat unique group of plaintiffs in the legal battle over the opioid-epidemic with class actions filed by consumers who claim they’re seeing skyrocketing health insurance costs as a result of the crisis.

The suits, filed in New York and four other states, were brought by individual persons against opioid manufacturers and distributors, and are among the few class actions filed against drug makers and marketers. The vast majority of cases have been separate actions brought by government entities like cities and counties.

The proposed classes include businesses and individuals who paid for health insurance as part of employer-sponsored plans.

“We don’t know anyone who in the litigation is addressing the private sector harms to consumers and businesses from increased premiums and other insurance costs that flow to anyone in the health insurance market as a result of the fact that insurers are paying more for addictions,” said Travis Lenkner, one of the plaintiffs attorneys filing the cases.

The opioid cases add a new type of plaintiff into the wide-reaching opioid litigation, which have also includes states, Native American tribes, pension funds and hospitals.

John Parker, senior vice president of the Healthcare Distribution Alliance, speaking on behalf of distributors AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and McKesson Corp., all named as defendants, called the opioid epidemic a “complex public health challenge.”

“Given our role, the idea that distributors are responsible for the number of opioid prescriptions written defies common sense and lacks understanding of how the pharmaceutical supply chain actually works and is regulated,” he said in a statement. “Those bringing lawsuits would be better served addressing the root causes, rather than trying to redirect blame through litigation.”

Purdue Pharma spokesman Bob Josephson noted that his company’s products account for less than 2 percent of all opioid prescriptions. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals defended the labels on its prescription opioids and called the allegations “baseless and unsubstantiated.”

Representatives of the other manufacturing defendants, which include Endo Health Solutions, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Insys Therapeutics Inc., did not respond to requests for comment.

It is now fairly common knowledge in the legal world that there is more than enough data that links increased health insurance costs to the opioid epidemic as well as the overall catastrophic impact of the flood of opioids into the America marketplace.

The suits cite statistics. In California, for instance, health insurance premiums for family coverage increased 233.5 percent from 2002 to 2016. Monthly premiums for the plaintiff in that case, Jordan Chu, jumped from $160.52 in 2016 to $240.76 this year. New Jersey residents with private health insurance spent $5,081 in insurance premiums in 2014, up from $2,454 in 2001. And an average family plan in New York with annual costs of $9,439 in 2003 had jumped to $19,375 in 2016.

Plaintiff counsel stated that they will be filing suits in more states and fight any attempts to transfer these cases to the Northern District of Ohio, where U.S. District Judge Dan Polster is overseeing the opioid multidistrict litigation, MDL 2804, even though the cases were filed in federal courts. A damaging discovery win for the plaintiffs was the order of May 18, 2018, see DEA ARCOS Database Access Order May 8, 2018 MDL 2804, where Judge Polster ordered the DEA to turn over distribution data for all 50 states based on the revelations in a prior DEA related order where the Opioid Drug distribution data provided very solid information on all the parties involved in creating the opioid crisis over the last 15 years.

The New York court docket parallels the federal and many other opioid based complaints, filed in state courts across the country where parties have decided to pursue their claims in their state courts versus the federal docket. These filings in both state and federal courts, will only increases the pressure on manufacturers and wholesalers to either win dismissal of these cases or prepare for an accelerated trial schedule.

There are currently more than 500 of the nation’s 3,200 counties have sued and plaintiff lawyers hope to soon get that number to 1,500, which some lawyers consider critical mass for a settlement.

The defendant companies argue they can’t be held liable for selling a legal product sold only with a doctor’s prescription whose distribution was controlled and overseen, from manufacturing to retail sales, by federal and state regulators.

The plaintiffs argue manufacturers used a variety of tactics, including misleading marketing materials and highly paid physician-influencers, to convince prescribing physicians their products were safe for treating chronic pain when, in fact, they were highly addictive.

In the March order, Judge Garguilo rejected the defendants’ claim that the FDA has exclusive authority to determine whether, in effect, opioids should be sold for anything other than relieving the pain of terminal illness. Regardless of what the FDA determines, the judge said, the municipal plaintiffs have the right to seek redress for their costs associated with addiction.

“Because the focus of this lawsuit is on the state of scientific knowledge that existed when the defendants made their marketing claims, there is no risk of inconsistent rulings, and none of the current studies will have any bearing on whether the defendants’ representations were misleading when made,” the judge wrote. The court isn’t being asked to decide the risks and benefits of opioids but whether the defendants misrepresented those risks and benefits, he added.

In case the defendants didn’t grasp the judge’s ultimate goal, the judge restated his “previously expressed desire” for a “prompt resolution of this matter.” The federal judge overseeing multidistrict litigation in Ohio, Judge Dan Aaron Polster, has similarly urged defendants to engage in settlement talks, although a global resolution of the litigation could prove difficult to negotiate.

In addition to hundreds of cases consolidated in federal court, the defendants face a wave of litigation in state court, like the New York cases, as well as lawsuits and investigations by state attorneys general and the federal government. Any settlement would have to protect the defendant companies from future lawsuits over the same issue and that may be difficult to negotiate given all the concurrent litigation in different courts. The time has now arrived for Opioid Big Pharma, in all forms to face the facts that for close to 20 years they have flooded the mainstream commerce of America with massive amounts of opiates with little to no oversight, which whether caused by a catastrophic systemic failure on many levels, or simple greed, the time has now come for the opiate industry to face the music of complex litigation in state and federal court venues across the country.

For those looking to tap into the opioid litigation or learn what the current status is in both state and federal court opioid litigation, please visit www.opioidcrisissummit.com where Mass Tort Nexus is hosting national political leaders and lead opiate counsel who are active in the day to day opioid crisis and have the most up to date case information during the two day event taking place July 21-22, 2018 in Fort Lauderdale.

(Mass Tort Nexus Media) Litigation against OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP and the rest of the Opioid Big Pharma industry just jumped significantly, as six more states have filed lawsuits against Purdue Pharma, et al. The ongoing allegations against the opioid pharmaceutical industry as a whole, where numerous governmental entities from across the country have asserted that the opiate makers have fueled a national opioid crisis. This is primarily based on corporate boardroom designed deceptive opioid marketing campaigns, designed to sell prescription opioids, and minimize the previously well-known medical risks, including addiction and overdose, while generating billions of dollars in sales.

Texas saw 1,186 opioid-related deaths in 2015, while the nation as a whole had 33,000 such deaths that year. Researchers have flagged opioids as one possible factor in Texas’ staggering rise in women’s deaths during and shortly after pregnancy.

State attorneys general of Nevada, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, North Dakota and Tennessee assert that Purdue Pharma violated state consumer protection laws by falsely denying or downplaying the addiction risk while overstating the benefits of opioids. The lawsuits also names pharmaceutical manufacturers Endo Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Mallinckrodt, as well as drug distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson Corporation.

“It’s time the defendants pay for the pain and the destruction they’ve caused,” Florida State Attorney General Pam Bondi told a press conference.

Medical professionals say a shift in the 1990s to “institutionalize” pain management opened the doors for pharmaceutical companies to encourage doctors to massively increase painkiller prescriptions, and Purdue Pharma led that effort. Which is now directly linked to the massive increase in drug overdoses, now see as the leading cause of accidental death for Americans under age 50, killing more than 64,000 people in 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

OxyContin was launched in the mid-90s by Purdue Pharma and aggressively marketed as a safe way to treat chronic pain. But it created dependency in many even as prescribed, and the pills were easy to abuse. Mass overprescribing has led to an addiction and overdose catastrophe across the US, more recently rippling out into rising heroin and fentanyl deaths.

Opioid overdoses made up a staggering 66 percent of all drug overdose deaths in 2016, surpassing the annual number of lives lost to breast cancer.

Florida and the other states also, named drug makers Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Allergan, units of Johnson & Johnson and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Mallinckrodt, as well as drug distributors AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and McKesson Corp. The distributors played a part in opioid abuse through oversupply, including failing to identify suspicious orders and report them to authorities, including the DEA and other oversight agencies, contributing to an illegal secondary market in prescription opioids, such as Purdue’s OxyContin, Endo’s Percocet and Insys Therapeutics fentanyl drug Subsys, a fast acting and extremely addictive drug.

Teva, in a statement, emphasized the importance of safely using opioids, while AmerisourceBergen said it was committed to collaborating with all stakeholders to combat opioid abuse.

The Healthcare Distribution Alliance, an umbrella group for drug distributors, said in a statement that accusations that distributors were responsible for the abuse of opioid prescriptions defied common sense and lacked understanding of the pharmaceutical supply chain.

BILLIONS IN PROFITS

The pharmaceutical industry spent a vast $6.4 billion in “direct-to-consumer” advertisements to hype new drugs in 2016, according tracking firm Kantar Media. That figure has gone up by 62% since 2012, Kantar Media says. This number may seem large at first but compared to the multi-billions in yearly profits just by opioid manufacturers over the last 15 years, the numbers is small. Corporate earnings have risen every year since the push to increase opioid prescriptions in every way possible, to became an accepted business model in Big Pharma boardrooms across the country.

THE SACKLERS AND PURDUE

Lawsuits have already been filed by 16 other U.S. states and Puerto Rico against Purdue and the related opioid drug companies and distributors. Purdue, which is a privately held company, owned by the Sackler brothers and family, in February said it stopped promoting opioids to physicians after widespread criticism of the ways drugmakers market highly addictive painkillers.

Purdue Pharma is owned by the Sackler family, listed at 19th on the annual Forbes list of wealthiest families in the country at a worth of $13 billion. The family’s fortune largely comes from OxyContin sales, which its company branded and introduced as an extended release painkiller in 1995.

Two branches of the Sackler family control Purdue, which developed and continues to make OxyContin, the narcotic prescription painkiller regarded as the “ground zero” of America’s opioids crisis.

Bondi said state attorneys general from New York, California and Massachusetts were preparing similar lawsuits, with Massachusetts last week sending a letter to Purdue notifying the company of its intention to sue. The California and New York attorney general offices did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Stamford, Connecticut-based Purdue, in a statement, denied the accusations, saying its drugs were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and accounted for only 2 percent of all opioid prescriptions, seemingly ignoring the 600 lawsuits filed against them in the last year, as well as the minimum of 15 federal and state criminal investigations that are underway across the country. At the forefront of the criminal investigations is the U.S. Attorney, John H. Durham, District of Connecticut, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, based in New Haven, CT the state which is also where Purdue Pharma is headquartered, who is leading a multi-group task force looking into the potential criminal conduct of not only Purdue, but the entire Opiate Big Pharma industry as a whole.

“We are disappointed that after months of good faith negotiations working toward a meaningful resolution to help these states address the opioid crisis, this group of attorneys general have unilaterally decided to pursue a costly and protracted litigation process,” Purdue said.

Opioids were involved in more than 42,000 overdose deaths in 2016, the last year for which data was available, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kentucky, one of the nation’s hardest-hit states, lost more than 1,400 people to drug overdoses that year.

Separate litigation involving at least 433 lawsuits by U.S. cities and counties were consolidated in a federal court in Cleveland, Ohio. The defendants include Purdue, J&J, Teva, Endo, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson. The federal litigation is growing daily see, Opiate Prescription MDL 2804, US District Court of Ohio link.

The federal lawsuits which accuse drugmakers and the opioid industry as a whole, of deceptively marketing opioids and the distributors of ignoring indications that the painkillers were being diverted for improper uses.

U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, who is overseeing the consolidated litigation, has been pushing for a global settlement. He had previously invited state attorneys general with cases not before him to participate in those talks, from the start of the MDL 2804 litigation being assigned to his courtroom.

Despite filing separate lawsuits, the six attorneys general on Tuesday said they would continue to engage in settlement discussions with Purdue and other companies. “You always want to settle and prevent a prolonged litigation,” said Florida’s Bondi. “But we’re sending a message that we’re fully prepared to go to war.”

PURDUE-OXYCONTIN HISTORY

On December 12, 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the opioid analgesic OxyContin. It hit the market in 1996. In its first year, OxyContin accounted for $45 million in sales for its manufacturer, Stamford, Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma. By 2000 that number would balloon to $1.1 billion, an increase of well over 2,000 percent in a span of just four years. Ten years later, the profits would inflate still further, to $3.1 billion. By then the potent opioid accounted for about 30 percent of the painkiller market. What’s more, Purdue Pharma’s patent for the original OxyContin formula didn’t expire until 2013. This meant that a single private, family-owned pharmaceutical company with non-descript headquarters in the Northeast controlled nearly a third of the entire United States market for pain pills.

OxyContin’s ball-of-lightning emergence in the health care marketplace was close to unprecedented for a new painkiller in an age where synthetic opiates like Vicodin, Percocet, and Fentanyl had already been competing for decades in doctors’ offices and pharmacies for their piece of the market share of pain-relieving drugs. In retrospect, it almost didn’t make sense. Why was OxyContin so much more popular? Had it been approved for a wider range of ailments than its opioid cousins? Did doctors prefer prescribing it to their patients?

During its rise in popularity, there was a suspicious undercurrent to the drug’s spectrum of approved uses and Purdue Pharma’s relationship to the physicians that were suddenly privileging OxyContin over other meds to combat everything from back pain to arthritis to post-operative discomfort. It would take years to discover that there was much more to the story than the benign introduction of a new, highly effective painkiller.

US DEPT OF JUSTICE INDICTMENTS

While the FDA has failed, the US Department of Justice has launched a massive crackdown on opiate drug makers including indictments of company executives, sales & marketing personnel as well as the doctors and pharmacies that have enabled the flood of easy access narcotics into the US market for over 15 years. The question is “how and why” did the FDA drop the ball or was this an intentional lack of enforcement and oversight by the FDA and other agencies due to Big Pharma influence over Congressional members who would blunt any true oversight of drug companies.

“FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON SPEAKS TO THE OPIATE CRISIS ISSUES”

Former President Bill Clinton pulled no punches as he focused directly on the opiate issues “Nobody gets out of this for free,” which seems to be where most of the finger pointing and blame game rests, which is one of the prime issues of the highest importance. The checkbook to pull the country out of this national opiate epidemic will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars and even then, the costs of social and economic damage to date, will never be recovered. Clinton further commented on how the opioid epidemic “creeps into every nook and cranny of our country” and needs to be addressed as both a huge national problem and a community-by-community tragedy, adding “this can rob our country of the future.”

RURAL vs. BIG CITY OPIATES

Almost 2.75 million opioid prescriptions were filled in New York City each year from 2014 to 2016. Which is a very high number for a major city, but not nearly the millions of opiate prescriptions written in the more rural regions of Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky, where the number of opiates prescribed equaled 100 plus pills per month for every resident in these states, with West Virginia numbers being, 780 million painkillers prescribed in six years.

As more and more cities, states and counties files suits against the opiate drug industry as a whole, there will be a point where Opiate Big Pharm will have to decide whether to admit it’s fault in the opioid crisis, or simply continue to evade responsibility and leave the process up to lawyers and the courts to assign a financial penalty for the alleged corporate opioid abuses.

FDA Failed to Cite Opioid Big Pharma

Perhaps a look at former US Representative Tom Price, will provide insight into how our lawmakers work within the healthcare industry. Rep. Price was appointed by President Trump to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which the FDA reports to, was forced to resign as HHS head due to various transgression within 6 months of being appointed, as well as leaks that while a sitting congressman he enacted a bill favoring a medical device makers extension of a multi-year government contract. Not only did Price enact the bill, he purchased stock in the company prior to the bill introduction and secured a massive profit on the stock price increase after the contract extension was announced. In normal business circles this is considered “insider trading” and is illegal, but when you’re one of those people in charge of creating the rules and regulations, there’s an apparent “get out of jail card” that comes with your congressional seat.

As long as the US Congress fails to correct the lack of oversight by the FDA and other regulatory agencies into what and how dangerous drugs and products are placed into the US marketplace, there will always be bad drugs entering the healthcare pipeline in the United States, with the now enduring default misnomer of “Profits Before Patients” firmly in place in boardrooms and within our government.

As the Opioid litigation expands across the country in both state and federal courtrooms, it remains to be seen if the anticipated payouts will surpass the $200 billion payday for governments in the 1998 Big Tobacco Litigation settlement.

What remains to be seen is where and how the directly affected “individuals” who were prescribed millions of addictive opiates and subsequently became addicted and where thousands more overdosed and died, remains to be seen.

Who will be the advocate to make sure that these individuals as well as their children, families and communities as a whole are placed on the road to recovery. Historically, Big Pharma is not an industry to put the best interests of the paying consumer at the forefront of their agendas.

Opiate Use Has Increased While Realtime Data Shows There’s A Diminishing Return

By Mark A. York (May 11, 2018)

Why was there a 30% rise in opioid overdoses in 2017

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA)From 2000 to 2016, government research data shows that more than 600,000 people died from drug overdoses — nearly 64,000 in 2016 alone.

See the data on the 30% rise in opioid overdoses between 2016 and 2017, click CDClink here.

MIDWEST AMERICA WAS TARGETED

According to sources at all levels from police and fire first responders to emergency room physicians across the country and analysts at the CDC, there’s been no slowdown in opiate based medical emergencies in the US over the last 2 years. Emergency response and ER visits for opioid overdoses went way up, with a 30 percent increase in the single year period of June of 2016 to June of 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The increased emergency room visits also include more young children aged three to fourteen years old, which truly reflects on the unknown number still available opiates that are readily accessible to anyone who has an interest in getting them, and often with an inadvertent and tragic risk to younger victims who somehow are exposed and now being swept up in the opioid crisis.

Center for Disease Control’s Acting Director Dr. Anne Schuchat said overall the most dramatic increases were in the Midwest, where emergency visits went up 70 percent in all ages over 25. This is a figure that’s is comparative to prior medical emergency spikes during pandemic healthcare

Recently two important medical reports on opiate abuse have emerged indicating that the opioid crisis may be at its worst point ever.

The first study comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a federal agency tasked with studying – and stopping – the spread of diseases, including everything from viral infections like the flu to mental health issues including drug addiction. Published in the agency’s monthly Vital Signs report, the study demonstrates that the number of opioid overdoses increased by 30% in a little more than one year from July 2016 to September 2017.

The second study comes from a group of VA medical personnel and public health researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), who wanted to learn how effective opioid prescription drugs were at managing long-term and chronic pain. As it turns out, opioid drugs showed less efficacy than non-opioid pain medications over a 12-month period – and in fact, over time opioids became worse for patients who had to deal with side effects that patients taking non-opioid medications did not have to deal with. Taken together, these two studies show that current opioid drug policies, procedures, prescription practices and standards of patient care clearly need to be rethought.

“A small West Virginia town of 3,000 people got 21 million pills”

Drug companies deluged tiny towns in West Virginia with a monsoon of addictive and deadly opioid pills over the last decade, according to ongoing investigations by various public and private entities. After Opioid Big Pharma has reaped billions in profits over the last 15 years at the expense of US citizens, often those in the most rural and distressed areas of the country, it now appears that the time has come for Big Pharma to be called to answer for its conduct.

For instance, drug companies collectively poured 20.8 million hydrocodone and oxycodone pills into the small city of Williamson, West Virginia, between 2006 and 2016, according to a set of letters the committee released Tuesday. Williamson’s population was just 3,191 in 2010, according to US Census data. These numbers are outrageous, and we will get to the bottom of how this destruction was able to be unleashed across West Virginia,” committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and ranking member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) said in a joint statement to the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

The nation is currently grappling with an epidemic of opioid addiction and overdose deaths. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that, on average, 115 Americans die each day from opioid overdoses. West Virginia currently has the highest rate of drug overdose deaths in the country. Hardest hit have been the regions of West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky where for some reason the opioid industry chose to focus on, the how and why will be address in the federal and state courts across the country, as the opioid crisis has caused the “Opiate Prescription Multidistrict Litigation MDL 2804”, to be created and heard in the US District Court-Northern District of Ohio, in front of Judge Dan Polster, see Opiate Prescription MDL 2804 Briefcase.

WHERE WAS THE OFFICIAL OVERSIGHT?

The House committee repeatedly asked if the company thought these orders were appropriate and what limits—if any—it would set on such small towns. Miami-Luken would not respond to a request for comment. The committee had similar questions for HD Smith, who delivered 1.3 million hydrocodone and oxycodone pills to a pharmacy in Kermit—the 406-person town—in 2008.

“If these figures are accurate, HD Smith supplied this pharmacy with nearly five times the amount a rural pharmacy would be expected to receive,” the committee wrote. It noted that the owner of that Kermit pharmacy later spent time in federal prison for violations of the Controlled Substance Act. Still, the committee pressed the question of whether HD Smith thought its distribution practices were appropriate.

“We will continue to investigate these distributors’ shipments of large quantities of powerful opioids across West Virginia, including what seems to be a shocking lack of oversight over their distribution, all the while collecting record breaking profits and paying sale reps in the field enormous bonuses. This is the pattern that all Opioid Big Pharma has followed across the United states for the last 20 years, pay field sales rep many thousands of dollars on bonuses, to push opiates on doctors, hospitals and anyone else who can move drugs into the healthcare treatment assembly line.

OPIOIDS FOR CASUAL PAIN MANAGEMENT PUSHED BY BIG PHARMA

Why did the emphasis on pain management in the 1990s result in a focus on opioid prescriptions? One reason may have been aggressive marketing efforts by opioid drug makers. For example, from 1996 to 2001, Purdue Pharma held more than 40 pain management conferences for healthcare providers to promote the use of its new OxyContin® extended-release formula of oxycodone. Sales surged from $45 million in 1996 to $1.1 billion a year in 2000—an increase of well over 2000%.

“We were told way back in the ’90s that these drugs were safe, that they wouldn’t hurt people, and that it was imperative to control pain,” Dr. Kalliainen recalls. Then, in 2007, Purdue admitted it had misled doctors into thinking OxyContin was less easily abused than other drugs in its class. It agreed to pay $600 million in fines and other fees to the Justice Department. Something else has changed in the culture as well, says Dr. Kalliainen. Patients seem to be in as much emotional pain as physical pain. “I’ve been in practice for 16 years now, and there’s been a huge increase in free-floating anxiety in patients,” she says.

US physicians often that find writing a prescription for an opioid is the most convenient way to respond to their patients’ demands, Dr. Kallianen says. As a resident in the 1990s, she remembers being told by the attending physician to write prescriptions for 60 or 70 opioid tablets for nearly every surgery patient. “You started a whole generation of physicians who are out there saying, ‘Write them for 60 [tablets] so they don’t call in.’”

One reason the practice has persisted is that surgeons often don’t know what effect their prescriptions are having, says Dr. Kalliainen. “We don’t see somebody dying of an overdose or becoming addicted. We don’t know if somebody is coming in and stealing their medications from their medicine cabinet and then having a problem. All the negative effects are away from our direct vision. So we’re not taking as much responsibility.” But research shows that once they have received opioid drugs, many patients can’t stop using them. One study found that 8.2% of patients who took opioids for the first time after total knee arthroplasty were still using them 6 months later, despite weak evidence that the drugs are effective for chronic pain management.

Among people already abusing drugs, some studies suggest that the opioids serve as a bridge between other substances and heroin.] Even when patients don’t abuse the opioids themselves, the drugs prescribed to them may end up in the hands of people who do. Surveys of people who abuse opioids show that as many as 23.8% obtained the drugs from clinicians, and 53% obtained them from friends or relatives, most of whom obtained them from clinicians.

“It’s not like these are stolen off the truck,” says Brent J. Morris, MD, a shoulder and elbow surgeon at the Shoulder Center of Kentucky in Lexington, who has published extensively on opioid prescribing patterns. “Certainly, physicians play a role in this.”

RECENT FDA COMMENTS ON OPIOIDS

Opana ER: June 2017 U.S. Food and Drug Administration requested that Endo Pharmaceuticals remove its opioid pain medication, reformulated Opana ER (oxymorphone hydrochloride), from the market. After careful consideration, the agency is seeking removal based on its concern that the benefits of the drug may no longer outweigh its risks.

Codeine and Tramadol Can Cause Breathing Problems for Children

FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA restricts use of prescription codeine pain and cough medicines and tramadol pain medicines in children; recommends against use in breastfeeding women issued on April 20, 2017.

These medicines can cause life-threatening breathing problems in children. Some children and adults break down codeine and tramadol into their active forms faster than other people. That can cause the level of opioids in these people to rise too high and too quickly.

January 2018 FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA requires labeling changes for prescription opioid cough and cold medicines to limit their use to adults 18 years and older

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requiring safety labeling changes for prescription cough and cold medicines containing codeine or hydrocodone to limit the use of these products to adults 18 years and older because the risks of these medicines outweigh their benefits in children younger than 18.

FIGHTING THE OPIOiD FIGHT

In the United States, has been fighting a losing opioid battle for a long time now. With one study reporting that Americans consume approximately 80% of the world’s opioid drug supply. Given that painkillers make up the one of the largest classes of drugs manufactured around the globe, second only to cancer drugs, this is a rather staggering statistic: According to the CDC, more than a quarter of a billion prescriptions for opioid painkillers were written in 2013, the latest year for which data is available, and that number has almost certainly risen in recent years.

As these two latest studies show, not only are we losing the battle against opioid use – and, more importantly, abuse – but the battle itself is largely one that we should never have had to wage in the first place. A large portion of people who become addicted to opioids do so after receiving a prescription for long-term pain management. But as the JAMA study shows, it appears opioids are actually worse at managing chronic pain than non-opioid medications.

The primary reason for addiction and the correlating social problems is the casual acceptance by so many that opioids prescribed by a doctor are well intended and okay to use, not realizing that over time people tend to build up a tolerance for them. This means that patients have to take larger and larger doses in order to receive the same benefit as they did previously with smaller doses. This has been long known by doctors and researchers, including the Big Pharma Opioid marketing and sales teams, which was reinforced in the JAMA study. Participants reported that opioids were more effective than non-opioids early in the study, but at around six months they started to report that opioids the same or even less effective at managing pain than their non-opioid counterparts.

Other side effects include nausea and vomiting, mental health problems (including everything from confusion to depression), and full-blown chemical dependence. Then, there are the problems associated with opioid withdrawal. The upshot of all these side effects is that, even when opioids are working, they well may wind up causing the patient harm in other ways.

Combined with the increase in overdoses, the fact that opioids are less effective than presumed creates a substantial public health problem. We are throwing large sums of public and private money at treating opioid addiction and related issues caused by a problem that could have been completely avoided by using more effective (and less habit-forming) medications.

IS THERE A SOLUTION FOR THE OPIOID CRISIS?

People in many different professional areas are looking for ways to address the addiction problem that has arisen while simultaneously working to prevent future addictions. The concern is having the crisis split along political lines where conservative push for draconian solutions and liberals push for free treatment for everyone. Both solution are untenable and misdirected, but there are proponents for both strategies forming in camps across the country. .

Given the reduced effectiveness of opioid painkillers over time, doctors must look at finding newer and better ways to treat long-term and chronic pain, with a more fully evolved treatment protocol. This includes research and developing into safer medications, more active lifestyle review and changes by patients and a wider acceptance by the medical community of complementary therapies, such as meditation, yoga, tai chi, and massage – including the use of medical marijhuana. Awareness about these alternative pain relief methods need to be be included as part of any sincere program that provides solutions to the opioid crisis.

THE PRESCRIPTION OPIATES BEING PRESCRIBED

oxycodone (OxyContin, Percodan, Percocet)

hydrocodone (Vicodin, Lortab, Lorcet)

diphenoxylate (Lomotil)

morphine (Kadian, Avinza, MS Contin)

codeine

fentanyl (Duragesic)

propoxyphene (Darvon)

hydromorphone (Dilaudid)

meperidine (Demerol)

methadone

For another thing, public policy on illegal drugs needs to be significantly reconsidered, especially for less-addictive drugs like marijuana. A study published last year in the American Journal of Public Health showed that legalizing marijuana for recreational use can significantly reduce the number of opioid deaths. Considering there have been no known reports of a marijuana overdose ever according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), that seems like a pretty good tradeoff from a simple public health policy perspective.

Another way to fight the problem is to increase the availability of opioid agonist drugs, such as naloxone, not only to health care providers and emergency department staff but to trained first responders and others as well. Naloxone reverses the effects of both prescription opioids and illegal drugs, such as heroin, and it can be an important first step toward helping those with substance use disorders become well.

Finally, IN the emerging MDL 2804 (Opiate Prescription Litigation) the opioid drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies are being held accountable for marketing tactics and self-funded studies that may have overblown the effectiveness of their drugs. Many state, county, and local governments are bringing lawsuits, including RICO claims, against pharmaceutical companies in an attempt to offset costs for public health services that have been used to treat addictions and other medical conditions caused by opioid abuse. The DEA and the Department of Justice recently agreed to provide its data on prescription opioid sales to states and municipalities that are pursuing lawsuits.

The comparison is made to the Tobacco Litigation of the 1990’s which settled in 1998 for $200 billion, WITH he Opiate MDL 2804 litigation being expected to easily surpass that figure with conservative estimates reaching between $750 and $900 billion dollars.

New Jersey State Court MCL Designations: Is NJ the emerging state court mass tort venue for lawsuits against Big Pharma?

By Mark A. York (May 11, 2018)

(Mass Tort Nexus Media) In late 2017 plaintiffs and defendants in the Abilify litigation in New Jersey state court moved to have the litigation designated as a multicounty litigation (MCL) on December 27, 2017 and which was approved as an MCL on May 9, 2018, see links below for both court filings.

The New Jersey judiciary site provides multicounty litigation docket information where you will see there are more MCL dockets that parallel existing federal MDL’s being brought in Big Pharma’s backyard. These multicounty litigations involve large numbers of claims that are associated with pharmaceuticals and medical devices based in New Jersey, and there appears to be an emerging consensus that confronting J&J, Sanofi and others in their home state venue is now a very viable litigation option for mass tort firms across the country. The recently consolidated Abilify MCL is a prime example, as is the pending Taxotere MCL application.

There were nearly 50 Abilify cases filed in Bergen County in New Jersey Superior Court, with that number expected to rise over the next few months, with Superior Court Judge James DeLuca having been the initial judge handling the docket, both plaintiff and defense had agreed that the cases should remain with Judge DeLuca. However, the May 7, 2018 order designated Superior court Judge Nelson C. Johnson and the Atlantic county court as the Abilify New Jersey MCL venue, Abilify New Jersey MCL Designation Atlantic County May 7, 2018.

The motion for MCL designation was filed to ensure that any Abilify case filed in New Jersey will be transferred into the designated state court venue and remain there. There is already a multidistrict litigation (MDL) designation in the Abilify federal litigation, which is consolidated in Northern District of Florida, where the three upcoming bellwether trial were just settled, as well as pending “global settlement order, see Abilify MDL 2734 Global Settlement Order, where Judge Casey Rodgers ordered the parties to reach an agreement within 120 days of the May 1, 2018 order entry date. The MDL for Abilify was consolidated in October 2016, before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers.

NEW JERSEY STATE COURT ETHICON MESH CONSOLIDATION

Ethicon now faces a home state hernia mesh legal battle as the New Jersey Supreme Court posted the Application for Multicounty Litigation (MCL) status on April 11, 2018 regarding the emerging Ethicon/J&J multi-layered hernia mesh products litigation pending in New Jersey state courts, Ethicon Hernia Mesh Litigation MCL Notice – New Jersey State Court April 11, 2018. The filing requests the Ethicon hernia mesh cases be consolidated in Bergen County in front of Judge Rachell Harz, over litigation related to Ethicon’s Proceed, Physiomesh and Prolene synthetic hernia mesh products. For information regarding the New Jersey Ethicon Hernia Mesh Litigation see Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase Re: Ethicon Hernia Mesh New Jersey State Court Consolidation, adding another docket of mesh cases to the ever growing J&J/Ethicon defense of its synthetic surgical mesh products.

As a growing number of hernia mesh lawsuits continue to be filed against Johnson & Johnson and it’s Ethicon subsidiary in New Jersey state court, each involving complications allegedly caused by the design of multi-layered patch products sold in recent years, a request has been filed to centralize the litigation before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On April 11, Glenn A. Grant, acting administrative director of New Jersey state courts, issued a Notice To The Bar (PDF), indicating that the state Supreme Court has received an application to create a multicounty litigation (MCL) for all product liability lawsuits over Ethicon multi-layered hernia mesh.

TAXOTERE EMERGING MCL

The most recent MCL application to be filed and listed by the New Jersey Courts is the Taxotere (docetaxel) cancer chemotherapy drug litigation against Sanofi-Aventis US, Sandoz, Inc. and Actavis, Inc with the MCL Notice posted on April 11, 2018 see Taxotere New Jersey MCL Notice To The Bar April 11, 2018.

How the New Jersey state court Taxotere MCL compares to the Taxotere MDL 2740 remains to be seen, but the New Jersey based pharmaceutical giants are now being forced to address mass torts more and more often in their home state courts, which previously was perceived as a venue of last resort for many plaintiff firms across the country.

With these three newest mass torts emerging in New Jersey state courts, along with the many pre-existing MCL’s that have been very successful there, will New Jersey now be considered the “go to” venue for filing litigation against Big PharMa?

Lamictal Emerging Litigation a Drug Made By GlaxoSmithKline plc

By Mark A. York (May 8, 2018)

Emerging Litigation: Lamictal (lamotrigine)

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Lamotrigine was approved in 1994 and is available under the brand name Lamictal (GlaxoSmithKline) and in generic forms. Since approval 24 years years ago, the FDA has identified eight cases (two in the United States and six abroad) of confirmed or suspected HLH associated with lamotrigine in children and adults. The FDA has stated “there are likely many more additional cases” that they are unaware of, based on lack of information and awareness of the adverse events.

The anticonvulsant medication lamotrigine can cause the rare but serious immune system reaction hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), the US and Food and Drug Administration said today in a safety communication.

The FDA said a warning about the risk for HLH will be added to the prescribing information on lamotrigine drug labels.

Lamotrigine is used alone or with other medicines to treat seizures in patients age 2 years and older. It is also indicated for maintenance treatment in patients with bipolar disorder to help stave off mood episodes (depression, mania or hypomania, and mixed episodes).

HLH is a hyperinflammatory syndrome that can lead to hospitalization and death, especially if not diagnosed and treated quickly. Diagnosis is often complicated because early signs and symptoms, such as fever and rash, are not specific, the FDA notes. HLH may also be confused with other serious immune-related adverse reactions, such as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

To Learn More About the Emerging Lamictal Litigation:

The emerging Lamictal Litigation will be used as a case study in the May 18 to 21, 2018 Mass Tort Nexus, “Four Days to Mass Tort Success Course” To register for the May Course, contact Jenny Levine at jenny@masstortnexus.com or call (954) 520-4494.

ISSUE: The FDA is warning that the medicine Lamictal (lamotrigine) for seizures and bipolar disorder can cause a rare but very serious reaction that excessively activates the body’s infection-fighting immune system. This can cause severe inflammation throughout the body and lead to hospitalization and death, especially if the reaction is not diagnosed and treated quickly. As a result, we are requiring a new warning about this risk be added to the prescribing information in the lamotrigine drug labels.

BACKGROUND: The immune system reaction, called hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), causes an uncontrolled response by the immune system. HLH typically presents as a persistent fever, usually greater than 101°F, and it can lead to severe problems with blood cells and organs throughout the body such as the liver, kidneys, and lungs.

Lamotrigine is used alone or with other medicines to treat seizures in patients two years and older. It may also be used as maintenance treatment in patients with bipolar disorder to help delay the occurrence of mood episodes such as depression, mania, or hypomania. Stopping lamotrigine without first talking to a prescriber can lead to uncontrolled seizures, or new or worsening mental health problems. Lamotrigine has been approved and on the market for 24 years, and is available under the brand name Lamictal and as generics.

RECOMMENDATION: Healthcare professionals should be aware that prompt recognition and early treatment is important for improving HLH outcomes and decreasing mortality. Diagnosis is often complicated because early signs and symptoms such as fever and rash are not specific. HLH may also be confused with other serious immune-related adverse reactions such as Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS).

Evaluate patients who develop fever or rash promptly, and discontinue lamotrigine if HLH or another serious immune-related adverse reaction is suspected and an alternative etiology for the signs and symptoms cannot be established. Advise patients to seek immediate medical attention if they experience symptoms of HLH during lamotrigine treatment. A diagnosis of HLH can be established if a patient has at least five of the following eight signs or symptoms:

Patients or their caregivers should contact their health care professionals right away if they experience any symptom of HLH while taking lamotrigine. HLH can occur within days to weeks after starting treatment. A physical examination and specific laboratory blood tests and other evaluations are used to diagnose HLH. Signs and symptoms of HLH include but are not limited to:

fever

enlarged liver; symptoms may include pain, tenderness, or unusual swelling over the liver area in the upper right belly

swollen lymph nodes

skin rashes

yellow skin or eyes

unusual bleeding

nervous system problems, including seizures, trouble walking, difficulty seeing, or other visual disturbances

Welcome to the FDA Drug Safety Podcast for health care professionals from the Division of Drug Information. This is Lesley Navin, Advanced Practice Nurse.

On April 25, 2018, FDA warned that the medicine lamotrigine (brand name Lamictal) for seizures and bipolar disorder can cause a rare but very serious reaction that excessively activates the body’s infection-fighting immune system. This can cause severe inflammation throughout the body and lead to hospitalization and death, especially if the reaction is not diagnosed and treated quickly. As a result, we are requiring a new warning about this risk be added to the prescribing information in the lamotrigine drug labels.

The immune system reaction, called hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), causes an uncontrolled response by the immune system and typically presents as a persistent fever, usually greater than 101°F. HLH can lead to severe problems with blood cells and organs throughout the body such as the liver, kidneys, and lungs.

Lamotrigine is used alone or with other medicines to treat seizures in patients two years and older. It may also be used as maintenance treatment in patients with bipolar disorder.

Health care professionals should be aware that prompt recognition and early treatment is important for improving HLH outcomes and decreasing mortality. Diagnosis is often complicated as early signs and symptoms such as fever and rash are not specific. HLH may also be confused with other serious immune-related adverse reactions. Evaluate patients who develop fever or rash promptly, and discontinue lamotrigine if HLH or another serious immune-related adverse reaction is suspected and an alternative etiology for the signs and symptoms cannot be established.

Since lamotrigine’s 1994 approval, FDA identified eight cases worldwide of confirmed or suspected HLH associated with the medicine in children and adults. This number includes only reports submitted to FDA and found in the medical literature, so there are likely additional cases about which we are unaware. We determined there was reasonable evidence that lamotrigine was the cause of HLH in these eight cases based on the timing of events and order in which they occurred. These patients required hospitalization and received drug and other medical treatments, with one dying.

Side effects involving lamotrigine should be reported to FDA’s MedWatch program at www.fda.gov/medwatch.

Emerging Ocaliva Litigation

Ocaliva (obeticholic acid) made by Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was first approved by the FDA subsequent to New Drug Application (NDA: 207999) in May 2016.

Ocaliva is “indicated for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults with an inadequate response to UDCA.

Recent FDA Communications Excerpts:

September 21, 2017, The FDA is notifying you, under Section 505(o)(4) of the FDCA, of new safety information that we believe should be included in the labeling for OCALIVA (obeticholic acid). This information pertains to the risk of liver injury, liver decompensation, liver failure and death in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) patients withmoderate to severe hepatic impairment.

Additionally, we refer to our letter dated October 26, and December 7, 2017, notifying you, under Section 505(o)(4) of the FDCA, extension of discussion period warranted for new safety information that we believe should be included in the labeling for OCALIVA (obeticholic acid) Tablets. This information pertains to the risks liver injury, liver decompensation, liver failure and possibly death in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) patients with moderate to severe hepatic impairment.

>To Learn More About the Emerging Ocaliva Litigation:

The emerging OcalivaLitigation will be used as a case study in the May 18th to 21st 2018 Mass Tort Nexus, “Four Days to Mass Tort Success Course” To register for the May Couse, contact Jenny Levine at jenny@masstortnexus.com or call (954) 520-4494.

Course attendees will receive the benefit of a step by step analysis of the emerging Ocaliva Litigaton, using these primary metrics:

Mass Tort Nexus Metrics

Some of the top mass tort trial lawyers in the country have endorsed the Mass Tort Nexus Immersion Course, including Jerry Parker, Founder of the Parker-Waichman Firm>

The Mass Tort Nexus Classes on Emerging Litigation and Ongoing Mass Torts are considered the premier source in the country to learn about the fundamentals of mass torts and how to enhance your firm practice, increase revenues and manage the related business operations effectively. Don’t wait for the next class or next year, enroll today and learn what others already have, Mass Torts are where your firm can and will grow its practice.

Judge Kennelly ordered the cases to be trial-ready by September 2018 and a second group by December. He also told counsel that other judges in the district volunteered to assist him by trying cases throughout the fall and winter of 2018 and into the spring of 2019, with both sides agreeing to have the cases tried before different judges. The judge said he will rule on all pretrial matters in the 20 cases, including summary judgments and in-limine motions, jury instructions and Daubert expert witness rulings, with each judge being given a trial-ready package of his rulings.

The judges who have agreed to hear trials in support of Judge Kennelly will be Chief Judge Ruben Castillo and Judges Virginia Kendall, Manish Shah, Rebecca Pallmeyer, Sara Ellis, John Lee, John Blakey, Robert Dow, Edmond Chang, Gary Feinerman and Jay Tharp.
Judge Kennelly said further trial dates after March 4 may be set by a future order.

AbbVie declared 3,770 AndroGel claims in the MDL in its Nov. 11, 2017 10-Q report, and about 205 claims in various state courts, including more than 200 additional testosterone drug cases await judgment in Cook County Circuit Court, many involving Illinois plaintiffs. In one trial in the Cook County court, involving a 66-year-old man who suffered a heart attack while taking AndroGel, resulted in a verdict in favor of AbbVie, but the man’s attorneys are seeking a new trial that will allow them to present evidence on the internal decision-making behind the company’s sales tactics. That evidence was not permitted in the initial trial.

PLAINTIFFS ARE AHEAD IN TRIAL VERDICTS

The first federal AndroGel case to go to trial in 2017 resulted in just a punitive damages award of $150 million, which was later vacated and a new trial ordered. The retrial resulted in a $3.2 million verdict with compensatory and punitive damages. The second bellwether trial resulted in a $140.1 million verdict in 2017, with the third bellwether trial resulting in a verdict for the defense.

In the fall of 2017 Konrad bellwether trial, resulting in the punitive damage verdict of $150 million, which was the first case in the series of bellwether trials aimed at helping plaintiffs and manufacturers of AndroGel gauge the range of damages and define a legal strategy and settlement options, even though the large verdict was vacated, it sent a clear message to the parties.

With defense losing both of the initial bellwether trials doesn’t look good for the defense, see “ANDROGEL” JURY RETURNS $150 MILLION VERDICT IN 1st TESTOSTERONE TRIAL. That jury’s decision to award punitive damages without granting compensatory damages was unusual and both sides continue to fight over the verdict’s validity in court, but shows that the plaintiffs seem to have viable claims at trial.

Plaintiffs across the country allege AndroGel has caused heart attacks, strokes and other injuries, and the company was aware of the increase in adverse events while marketing “off-label” use. AbbVie has defended the drug and responded that its marketing of AndroGel adhered strictly to uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration and they have remained in full compliance with all FDA standards.

Konrad, 56, had been using AndroGel for two months in 2010 when he suffered a heart attack, from which he has since recovered. In court pleadings, the company contended that Konrad’s heart attack was caused by other factors, which are are not related to being prescribed AndroGel, such as obesity and high blood pressure. It also said it made no misrepresentations about AndroGel’s safety, which now two juries have disagreed with to the tune of $290 million.

ANDROGEL WAS A BLOCKBUSTER FROM FIRST RELEASE

AbbVie’s AndroGel is one of the more dominant testosterone treatments In the ever growing Low-T market, with sales of $675 million in 2016, and was declared a blockbuster drug and moved earnings and shares higher as soon as AndroGel hit the market. However, there were concerns about the drug safety as far back as 2012 and the FDA took notice not long thereafter. In 2014, the FDA convened an advisory committee to consider the adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with testosterone replacement therapy, and the committee recommended changing the product warning labels, the FDA then required AbbVie to add a warning about cardiovascular risk to AndroGel’s label in May 2015.

HEART ATTACK AND STROKE RISK

Testosterone replacement drugs are approved to treat certain low-testosterone conditions in men. Plaintiffs allege that manufacturers invented a condition called “low-t” and marketed it for the treatment of the normal aging process and to restore strength and virility. Instead, the plaintiffs say testosterone drugs cause heart attacks and strokes.

AbbVie and predecessor Abbott Laboratories Inc. make AndroGel, a topical gel, AbbVie has owned AndroGel for only part of the drug’s history. Abbott Laboratories acquired AndroGel in 2010, and AbbVie was spun off from the company three years later.

Other defendants included Eli Lilly and Co. which makes Axiron, also a topical gel, and as previously mentioned has chosen to settle all claims in the litigation.. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. makes Aveed and Delatestryl, both injection drugs, and Fortesta, a topical gel. Actavis plc makes AndroDerm, an adhesive skin patch. Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc. makes Testim, a gel. Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia Inc. make Depo-Testosterone, an injection drug.

FDA ISSUED A WARNING

As listed in the Chicago Tribune article of March 4, 2015, see Testosterone drugs overused per FDA warning. Testosterone injections were first approved in the 1950s for men who had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, a form of abnormally low testosterone caused by disorders of the testicles, brain and other hormone-related organs. The But current labeling on the drugs is vague enough that companies have been able to promote them to millions of otherwise healthy men who simply have lower-than-normal levels of testosterone.

The FDA began reviewing the safety of testosterone drugs in January 2014 after two federal studies associated them with increased rates of heart attack, stroke and other serious problems. But other studies associated testosterone replacement with longevity.”The benefits and safety of this use have not been established,” the FDA said in a statement released in March 2015.

While men’s testosterone levels naturally decline after age 40, experts disagree on whether that drop actually leads to the issues like decreased energy and lower bone density. Additionally, testosterone levels change by the hour and are affected by a range of environmental factors, such as stress and sexual arousal.

How this unusual judicial move goes over at the trialsl remains to be seen, but there is a distinct message being sent by the courts, that failure to engage in serious settlement talks will result in cases being set for trial. Perhaps other courts across the country should try accelerating MDL case dockets to trial via such unexpected rulings, thereby resulting in more years long case dockets being cleaned up. Who this may benefit remains to be seen, as there will be 20 trial verdicts coming sooner as opposed to later , to answer questions such as this.

“BY REMOVING FDA OVERSIGHT BIG PHARMA RUNS AMOK”

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) In 2017 and continuing into 2018, Big Pharma has been fighting major legal battles related to off-label marketing of drugs for unintended uses. They also engaged in a parallel strategy, where they were influencing the FDA and other policy making agencies behind the scenes in Washington DC. Big Pharma was paying millions to lobbyists, making campaign donations and generally buying influence as they always have. It was a foregone conclusion that with the Trump administration view of , “no regulatory oversight required” that there would be some loosening of the FDA regulatory shackles.

Big Pharma was getting ready for freedom to sell, sell, sell their drugs in any way they could, including off-label marketing of the drugs for unintended use purposes. A corporate policy, that’s technically illegal, yet results in billions of dollars in profits every years for Big Pharma. Then the FDA rolled out an unexpected new proposed rule, in March 2017 cracking down on “off-label’ marketing of drugs. This new rule change wasn’t in Big Pharma’s bests interests, sending the drug industry into a furious lobbying scramble. Bring in the Trump camp and on January 12, 2018 Big Pharma and the army of lobbyists and elected officials that were recruited, seem to have succeeded in stopping the FDA rules change that would have tightened up “off label” marketing of drugs.

This seems to be further evidence of the Trump administration permitting private corporations to control what goes on behind the scenes in federal regulatory agencies these days. The same loosening of enforcement rules has been seen in the EPA as well as in Dept. of Energy oversight enforcement authority. Whatever else you might think about the ramped up Trump vs. Obama administration mindset, this rule delay is an example of the new FDA leadership doing what is in the best interests of those they are supposed to be regulating, the drug makers, and not in the interests of the US consumers.

To put this into perspective, consider the current “Opioid Crisis” gripping the entire country, where “off-label” marketing of opiates for the last 20 years by drug makers, has resulted in thousands of deaths each year, unknown financial losses and the related social impact felt in every state across the country. Another result is the Opiate Prescription Litigation MDL 2804, (see OPIOID CRISIS BRIEFCASE: MDL 2804 OPIATE PRESCRIPTION LITIGATION) where litigation started when hundreds of counties, states and cities and other entities impacted by the catastrophic expense related to combatting the opiate healthcare crisis fought back. The various parties have filed lawsuits against opioid drug makers and distributors, demanding repayment of the billions of dollars spent on addressing the massive costs related to opioid abuse, primarily due to opioid based prescription drugs flooding the country.

When the Obama administration ended on January 9, 2017, the FDA issued a Final Rule on “Clarification of When Products Made or Derived from Tobacco are Regulated as Drugs, Devices, or Combination Products; Amendments to Regulations Regarding ‘Intended Uses.’” That “clarification” was meant to enable additional enforcement and control over drug makers rampant “off -label” marketing of drugs for purposes that were never FDA approved. This was an attempt by the FDA to have the ability to punish off-label promotions, where previously the process was a two-step regulatory review, whereby off-label promotions are said to prove an indicated use not included in the label and, thus, not accompanied by adequate directions for use – making the product misbranded. These regulations have been around since the 1950s, but a recent series of court decisions invoking the First Amendment called into question the FDA’s interpretation of “intended use” and its efforts to shut down truthful medical-science communications about potential benefits from off-label use.

In a 2015 proposed rule, the FDA referred to striking the language from regulations permitting the FDA to consider a manufacturer’s mere knowledge of actual use as evidence of intended use, which would have further enabled Big Pharma drug marketing abuses to go unchecked. But then, the FDA’s January 9, 2017 proposal reversed course, stating that retained knowledge of off-label use as evidence of intended use, clarified that any relevant source of evidence, whether circumstantial or direct could demonstrate intended use, and ultimately invoked the dreaded “totality of the evidence” standard. This would have enable the FDA to begin oversight and enforcement of practices such as the blatant and wide open “off-label” marketing of opioid prescription drugs that started in the mid-1990’s and never stopped.

Instead of putting a check on Big Pharma abuses, we have the Trump administration placing a hold on new regulations, and delaying the “intended use” regulation change to March 19, 2018, so that comments could be received and considered, and thereby enabling the Big Pharma “lobby machine” to become fully engaged across all DC circles, ensuring that the FDA changes are effectively put to rest.

The bottom line is that the FDA is now proposing to “delay until further notice” the portions of the final rule amending the FDA’s existing regulations on “off-label” drug use, when describing the types of evidence that may be considered in determining a medical product’s intended uses. The FDA will receive comments on this proposal through February 5, 2018.

WHAT IS “OFF-LABEL” MARKETING?

Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider. The global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion.

“The conduct at issue in this case jeopardized the health and safety of patients and damaged the public trust,” stated Eric Holder, then US Attorney General, “This multibillion-dollar resolution demonstrates the Justice Department’s firm commitment to preventing and combating all forms of health care fraud. And it proves our determination to hold accountable any corporation that breaks the law and enriches its bottom line at the expense of the American people” he added.

The resolution includes criminal fines and forfeiture for violations of the law and civil settlements based on the False Claims Act arising out of multiple investigations of the company and its subsidiaries.

“When companies put profit over patients’ health and misuse taxpayer dollars, we demand accountability,” said Associate Attorney General Tony West. “In addition to significant monetary sanctions, we will ensure that non-monetary measures are in place to facilitate change in corporate behavior and help ensure the playing field is level for all market participants.”

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) protects the health and safety of the public by ensuring, among other things, that drugs intended for use in humans are safe and effective for their intended uses and that the labeling of such drugs bear true, complete and accurate information. Under the FDCA, a pharmaceutical company must specify the intended uses of a drug in its new drug application to the FDA. Before approval, the FDA must determine that the drug is safe and effective for those specified uses. Once the drug is approved, if the company intends a different use and then introduces the drug into interstate commerce for that new, unapproved use, the drug becomes misbranded. The unapproved use is also known as an “off-label” use because it is not included in the drug’s FDA-approved labeling.

“When pharmaceutical companies interfere with the FDA’s mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective for the American public, they undermine the doctor-patient relationship and put the health and safety of patients at risk,” said Director of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations John Roth. “Today’s settlement demonstrates the government’s continued focus on pharmaceutical companies that put profits ahead of the public’s health. The FDA will continue to devote resources to criminal investigations targeting pharmaceutical companies that disregard the drug approval process and recklessly promote drugs for uses that have not been proven to be safe and effective.”

J&J RISPERDAL MARKETING ABUSE

In a related civil complaint filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States alleges that Janssen marketed Risperdal to control the behaviors and conduct of the nation’s most vulnerable patients: elderly nursing home residents, children and individuals with mental disabilities. The government alleges that J&J and Janssen caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs by promoting Risperdal for off-label uses that federal health care programs did not cover, making false and misleading statements about the safety and efficacy of Risperdal and paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe Risperdal.

“J&J’s promotion of Risperdal for unapproved uses threatened the most vulnerable populations of our society – children, the elderly and those with developmental disabilities,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Zane Memeger. “This historic settlement sends the message that drug manufacturers who place profits over patient care will face severe criminal and civil penalties.”

In its complaint, the government alleges that the FDA repeatedly advised Janssen that marketing Risperdal as safe and effective for the elderly would be “misleading.” The FDA cautioned Janssen that behavioral disturbances in elderly dementia patients were not necessarily manifestations of psychotic disorders and might even be “appropriate responses to the deplorable conditions under which some demented patients are housed, thus raising an ethical question regarding the use of an antipsychotic medication for inappropriate behavioral control.”

The complaint further alleges that J&J and Janssen were aware that Risperdal posed serious health risks for the elderly, including an increased risk of strokes, but that the companies downplayed these risks. For example, when a J&J study of Risperdal showed a significant risk of strokes and other adverse events in elderly dementia patients, the complaint alleges that Janssen combined the study data with other studies to make it appear that there was a lower overall risk of adverse events. A year after J&J had received the results of a second study confirming the increased safety risk for elderly patients taking Risperdal, but had not published the data, one physician who worked on the study cautioned Janssen that “[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completed … we must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings.”

The complaint also alleges that Janssen knew that patients taking Risperdal had an increased risk of developing diabetes, but nonetheless promoted Risperdal as “uncompromised by safety concerns (does not cause diabetes).” When Janssen received the initial results of studies indicating that Risperdal posed the same diabetes risk as other antipsychotics, the complaint alleges that the company retained outside consultants to re-analyze the study results and ultimately published articles stating that Risperdal was actually associated with a lower risk of developing diabetes.

The complaint alleges that, despite the FDA warnings and increased health risks, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen aggressively marketed Risperdal to control behavioral disturbances in dementia patients through an “ElderCare sales force” designed to target nursing homes and doctors who treated the elderly. In business plans, Janssen’s goal was to “[m]aximize and grow RISPERDAL’s market leadership in geriatrics and long term care.” The company touted Risperdal as having “proven efficacy” and “an excellent safety and tolerability profile” in geriatric patients.

In addition to promoting Risperdal for elderly dementia patients, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen allegedly promoted the antipsychotic drug for use in children and individuals with mental disabilities. The complaint alleges that J&J and Janssen knew that Risperdal posed certain health risks to children, including the risk of elevated levels of prolactin, a hormone that can stimulate breast development and milk production. Nonetheless, one of Janssen’s Key Base Business Goals was to grow and protect the drug’s market share with child/adolescent patients. Janssen instructed its sales representatives to call on child psychiatrists, as well as mental health facilities that primarily treated children, and to market Risperdal as safe and effective for symptoms of various childhood disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and autism. Until late 2006, Risperdal was not approved for use in children for any purpose, and the FDA repeatedly warned the company against promoting it for use in children.

The government’s complaint also contains allegations that Janssen paid speaker fees to doctors to influence them to write prescriptions for Risperdal. Sales representatives allegedly told these doctors that if they wanted to receive payments for speaking, they needed to increase their Risperdal prescriptions.

In addition to allegations relating to Risperdal, today’s settlement also resolves allegations relating to Invega, a newer antipsychotic drug also sold by Janssen. Although Invega was approved only for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, the government alleges that, from 2006 through 2009, J&J and Janssen marketed the drug for off-label indications and made false and misleading statements about its safety and efficacy.

As part of the global resolution, J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay a total of $1.391 billion to resolve the false claims allegedly resulting from their off-label marketing and kickbacks for Risperdal and Invega. This total includes $1.273 billion to be paid as part of the resolution announced today, as well as $118 million that J&J and Janssen paid to the state of Texas in March 2012 to resolve similar allegations relating to Risperdal. Because Medicaid is a joint federal-state program, J&J’s conduct caused losses to both the federal and state governments. The additional payment made by J&J as part of today’s settlement will be shared between the federal and state governments, with the federal government recovering $749 million, and the states recovering $524 million. The federal government and Texas each received $59 million from the Texas settlement.

NURSING HOME PATIENT ABUSES BY J&J

The civil settlement also resolves allegations that, in furtherance of their efforts to target elderly dementia patients in nursing homes, J&J and Janssen paid kickbacks to Omnicare Inc., the nation’s largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients. In a complaint filed in the District of Massachusetts in January 2010, the United States alleged that J&J paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to Omnicare under the guise of market share rebate payments, data-purchase agreements, “grants” and “educational funding.” These kickbacks were intended to induce Omnicare and its hundreds of consultant pharmacists to engage in “active intervention programs” to promote the use of Risperdal and other J&J drugs in nursing homes. Omnicare’s consultant pharmacists regularly reviewed nursing home patients’ medical charts and made recommendations to physicians on what drugs should be prescribed for those patients. Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent” recommendations based on their clinical judgment, J&J viewed the pharmacists as an “extension of [J&J’s] sales force.”

J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay $149 million to resolve the government’s contention that these kickbacks caused Omnicare to submit false claims to federal health care programs. The federal share of this settlement is $132 million, and the five participating states’ total share is $17 million. In 2009, Omnicare paid $98 million to resolve its civil liability for claims that it accepted kickbacks from J&J and Janssen, along with certain other conduct.

“Consultant pharmacists can play an important role in protecting nursing home residents from the use of antipsychotic drugs as chemical restraints,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz. “This settlement is a reminder that the recommendations of consultant pharmacists should be based on their independent clinical judgment and should not be the product of money paid by drug companies.”

OFF-LABEL USE OF HEART DRUG NATRECOR

The civil settlement announced today also resolves allegations that J&J and another of its subsidiaries, Scios Inc., caused false and fraudulent claims to be submitted to federal health care programs for the heart failure drug Natrecor. In August 2001, the FDA approved Natrecor to treat patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure who have shortness of breath at rest or with minimal activity. This approval was based on a study involving hospitalized patients experiencing severe heart failure who received infusions of Natrecor over an average 36-hour period.

In a civil complaint filed in 2009 in the Northern District of California, the government alleged that, shortly after Natrecor was approved, Scios launched an aggressive campaign to market the drug for scheduled, serial outpatient infusions for patients with less severe heart failure – a use not included in the FDA-approved label and not covered by federal health care programs. These infusions generally involved visits to an outpatient clinic or doctor’s office for four- to six-hour infusions one or two times per week for several weeks or months.

The government’s complaint alleged that Scios had no sound scientific evidence supporting the medical necessity of these outpatient infusions and misleadingly used a small pilot study to encourage the serial outpatient use of the drug. Among other things, Scios sponsored an extensive speaker program through which doctors were paid to tout the purported benefits of serial outpatient use of Natrecor. Scios also urged doctors and hospitals to set up outpatient clinics specifically to administer the serial outpatient infusions, in some cases providing funds to defray the costs of setting up the clinics, and supplied providers with extensive resources and support for billing Medicare for the outpatient infusions.

As part of today’s resolution, J&J and Scios have agreed to pay the federal government $184 million to resolve their civil liability for the alleged false claims to federal health care programs resulting from their off-label marketing of Natrecor. In October 2011, Scios pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor FDCA violation and paid a criminal fine of $85 million for introducing Natrecor into interstate commerce for an off-label use.

“This case is an example of a drug company encouraging doctors to use a drug in a way that was unsupported by valid scientific evidence,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Brian Stretch. “We are committed to ensuring that federal health care programs do not pay for such inappropriate uses, and that pharmaceutical companies market their drugs only for uses that have been proven safe and effective.”

Non-Monetary Provisions of the Global Resolution and Corporate Integrity Agreement

In addition to the criminal and civil resolutions, J&J executed a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). The CIA includes provisions requiring J&J to implement major changes to the way its pharmaceutical affiliates do business. Among other things, the CIA requires J&J to change its executive compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual bonuses and other long-term incentives from covered executives if they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct. J&J may recoup monies from executives who are current employees and from those who have left the company. The CIA also requires J&J’s pharmaceutical businesses to implement and maintain transparency regarding their research practices, publication policies and payments to physicians. On an annual basis, management employees, including senior executives and certain members of J&J’s independent board of directors, must certify compliance with provisions of the CIA. J&J must submit detailed annual reports to HHS-OIG about its compliance program and its business operations.

“OIG will work aggressively with our law enforcement partners to hold companies accountable for marketing and promotion that violate laws intended to protect the public,” said Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Daniel R. Levinson. “Our compliance agreement with Johnson & Johnson increases individual accountability for board members, sales representatives, company executives and management. The agreement also contains strong monitoring and reporting provisions to help ensure that the public is protected from future unlawful and potentially harmful off-label marketing.”

FEDERAL AND STATE JOINT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

This resolution marks the culmination of an extensive, coordinated investigation by federal and state law enforcement partners that is the hallmark of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which fosters government collaborations to fight fraud. Announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the HEAT initiative has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.

The criminal cases against Janssen and Scios were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California and the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch. The civil settlements were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of California and the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch. Assistance was provided by the HHS Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of the General Counsel-CMS Division, the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

This matter was investigated by HHS-OIG, the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Inspector General, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labor, TRICARE Program Integrity, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Office of the Inspector General and the FBI.

One of the most powerful tools in the fight against Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

The department enforces the FDCA by prosecuting those who illegally distribute unapproved, misbranded and adulterated drugs and medical devices in violation of the Act. Since 2009, fines, penalties and forfeitures that have been imposed in connection with such FDCA violations have totaled more than $6 billion.

The civil settlements described above resolve multiple lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. From the federal government’s share of the civil settlements announced today, the whistleblowers in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will receive $112 million, the whistleblowers in the District of Massachusetts will receive $27.7 million and the whistleblower in the Northern District of California will receive $28 million. Except to the extent that J&J subsidiaries have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty to the criminal charges discussed above, the claims settled by the civil settlements are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability

With the Trump Administration still claiming that no regulatory oversight is needed to monitor the US drug industry, that they can self-regulate, it appears that there will be no letup in the rampant “off-label: and unintended use marketing of pharmaceutical drugs in the United States. The one way that Big Pharma is held accountable is in the courtroom, although financial damages and penalties against the drug companies amounting to billions of dollars each year being awarded by juries, wont change FDA policy, it does provide a small amount of official recognition that there are ongoing abuses by the pharmaceutical industry in the USA.